Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 69 No 1 (2023), 7–17
On the Competence Conflicts between the Constitutional Courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU
[On the Competence Conflicts between the Constitutional Courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU]
Richard Král
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.1
published online: 09. 03. 2023
abstract
The article is aimed as a contribution to academic discourse on how to solve possible competence conflicts between constitutional or other highest courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). This discourse has rather recently received an extraordinary impetus when Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (FCC) handed down its judgment in Weiss. For the first time in its history, the FCC invoked the ultra vires doctrine against an EU act and a CJEU judgment. It is argued in the article that the final say in dealing with such competence conflicts should not and cannot rest with either the CJEU or individual national apex courts. The article supports the idea of establishing an EU-competence super-arbiter. However, it is stressed in this respect that the component members of whatever EU-competence super-arbiter to be established should always include the representatives of all EU Member States (although not necessarily only them) and the voting of such EU-competence super-arbiter should be based on the (absolute) majority of those of its component members that are the representatives of Member States. Otherwise, the collective competence-competence monopoly of the EU Member States in the EU would be breached too strongly.
keywords: EU-competence super-arbiter; competence conflict; CJ EU; ultra vires doctrine; competence-competence in the EU
references (19)
1. BOBIĆ, A. The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. CrossRef
2. CURRIE, S. Accelerated Justice or a Step Too Far? Residence Rights of Non-EU Family Members and the Court's Ruling in Metock. European Law review. 2009, No. 2, pp. 310-326.
3. FENNELLY, D. Data retention: the life, death and afterlife of a directive. ERA Forum. 2018, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 673-692. CrossRef
4. GARBEN, S. Competence Creep Revisited. Journal of Common Market Studies. 2017, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 1-18. CrossRef
5. GRIMM, D. Eine neue Superinstanz in der EU? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik. 2020, No. 5, pp. 129-30.
6. HATJE, A. Gemeinsam aus der Ultra-vires-Falle: Plädoyer für einen "Gemeinsamen Rat der obersten Gerichtshöfe der Europäischen Union". Verfassungsblog. 4.6.2020.
7. HERZOG, R. - GERKEN, L. Stoppt den Europäischen Gerichtshof. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 8.9.2008.
8. HÖPNER, M. Proportionality and Karlsruhe's ultra vires verdict: ways out of constitutional pluralism? MPIfG Discussion Paper No. 21/1. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, 2021.
9. KRÁL, R. K řešení kompetenčních střetů mezi ústavními soudy členských států EU a Soudním dvorem EU, Jurisprudence. 2022, No. 5, pp. 26-33.
10. KRÁL, R. Questioning the recent challenge of the Czech Constitutional Court to the ECJ. European Public Law. 2013, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 271-280. CrossRef
11. KRÁL, R. Rozsudek SDEU Metock v kontextu brexitu. In: KYSELOVSKÁ, T. - SEHNÁLEK, D. - ROZEHNALOVÁ, N. (eds.). IN VARIETATE CONCORDIA: soubor vědeckých prací k poctě prof. Vladimíra Týče. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2019, pp. 121-130.
12. KUMM, M. Who Is the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality in Europe: Three Conceptions of the Relationship between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. Common Market Law Review. 1999, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 351-386. CrossRef
13. MATĚJEC, M. Přednost unijního práva a doktrína controlimiti ve světle rozsudku Taricco. Jurisprudence. 2018, No. 3, pp. 19-25.
14. RAUCHEGGER, C. National Constitutional Rights and the Primacy of EU Law: M.A.S. Common Market Law Review. 2018, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 1521-1547. CrossRef
15. SARMIENTO, D. - WEILER, J. H. H. The EU Judiciary After Weiss - Proposing a New Mixed Chamber of the Court of Justice. EU Law Live [online]. 1.6.2020 [cit. 2022-06-05]. Available at: eulawlive.com/op-ed-the-eu-judiciary-after-weiss-proposing-a-new-mixed-chamber-of-the-court-of-justice-by-daniel-sarmiento-and-j-h-h-weiler/#.
16. SERDULA, O. K rozšiřování věcné působnosti unijních pravidel na ochranu osobních údajů ze strany SDEU. Právník. 2020, Vol. 159, No. 8, pp. 641-660.
17. The German Federal Constitutional Court's PSPP Judgment. German Law Review. 2020, Vol. 21, No. 5, Special Section.
18. WEILER, J. H. H. The Constitution of Europe: "Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?" and Other Essays on European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
19. WEILER, J. H. H. The European Union Belongs to Its Citizens: Three Immodest Proposals. European Law Review. 1997, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 150-156.
On the Competence Conflicts between the Constitutional Courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
